GADDE BUCHAIAH Vs. DASARI KOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in these two appeals filed O. S. No. 78/56 against the second respondent herein and his father Hanumantha Rao for recovery of Moines due to him. Similar suits. O. S. 65/54 and O. S. 46/56 were filed by the appellant in C. M. A. No. 269/67 against the same persons. All the suits were tried together and were decreed on the 30/04/1958. The decree-holder in O. S. 78/56. that is, the first respondent ins these two appeals filed E. P. No. 295/59 on the 22/09/1959 for attachment and sale of certain properties which fell to the share of the sons the second respondent in a partition between him and his father. On 8-1-1962 five of these items were sold and were purchased by the decree-holder. Meanwhile an insolvency petitions was filed by the judgment-debtor. Hanumantharao. On 7-2-1959 an interims Receiver was appointed. Subsequently, the insolvency petition was allowed and an man that rao was adjudicated an insolvent on 4-11-1959.

(2.) Two applications were filed under O. 21, R. 90 and Section 151, C. P. C., to set aside the sale held on 7-1-1962 in E. P. No. 295/59. The first application, E. A. 747/62 is by the decree-holder in O. S. 65/54 and 46/56 and the second is by the Official Receiver. The sales were sought to be set aside on several grounds. These applications were posed not only on the merits, but on the ground that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the petitions. The court below. while giving findings on the merits came to the conclusion that the petitioners in both the applications had no locus standi to file the petitioners and dismissed the petition with costs. The decree-holder in O. S. 46/56 has preferred C. M. A. No. 269/67 against the order in E. A. No. 747/62 and the Official Receiver has preferred C. M. A. No. 270/67s against the order in E. A. No. 748/62.

(3.) The second respondent in these appeals had filed a suit, O. S. 92/54 against his father. Hanumantharao alleging that partition has already been effected on 10-11-1953. This suit ended in a compromise decree dated 30-8-1955. Ins the subsequent suit filed by stases appellant in C. M. A. No. 26/67 that is O. S. 46/56 one of the questions was whether the decree in O. S. No. 92/54 was collusive and fraudulent. It was held that the partition set up was not true and the division in status had been brought about only by these institution of the suit O. S. 92/54 . This was affirmed in appeal by the High Court.